Where does moral responsibility come from? - Think Atheist2018-11-20T00:44:58Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/where-does-moral-responsibility-come-from?feed=yes&xn_auth=noThere is a tale in Plato's Re…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-23:1982180:Comment:15954982016-07-23T01:00:45.039ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>There is a tale in Plato's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Republic</span> of the Ring of Gyges. I'm not going to go into the whole myth so I'll just summarize it this way. There was a ring which, if you turned it in a certain way rendered you not just invisible, but totally undetectable. </p>
<p>If you wanted something, you could steal it. If someone offended you, you could kill them. And you could behave this way with total impunity. The question is this, if you had such a ring,…</p>
<p>There is a tale in Plato's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Republic</span> of the Ring of Gyges. I'm not going to go into the whole myth so I'll just summarize it this way. There was a ring which, if you turned it in a certain way rendered you not just invisible, but totally undetectable. </p>
<p>If you wanted something, you could steal it. If someone offended you, you could kill them. And you could behave this way with total impunity. The question is this, if you had such a ring, what reason would you have for being good?</p>
<p>Socrates' reply was basically that if you were to use the ring, you'd end up being enslaved to your desires and appetites and would be far less happy, ultimately, than someone leading a life of honesty.</p>
<p>Another answer is that when you deceive others and have a secret life of dishonesty, you become alone in the world. You have no real friends because no one can trust you. Even those who do trust you are unaware that they shouldn't. You become trapped behind a wall of your own making.</p> Kant or no Kant...I think peo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-22:1982180:Comment:15953922016-07-22T22:27:05.595ZTJhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TJ
<p>Kant or no Kant...I think people are, generally, as good as any other primate, and, due to being raised in a social environment, act socially with each other.</p>
<p>The exceptions are discouraged/punished/shunned, killed or banished, etc, depending upon the species.</p>
<p>That's why people act "morally". They want to be good, because they were raised to want to be good.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If told that to be good, no one can see your face, or penis, well, that becomes part of what they strive…</p>
<p>Kant or no Kant...I think people are, generally, as good as any other primate, and, due to being raised in a social environment, act socially with each other.</p>
<p>The exceptions are discouraged/punished/shunned, killed or banished, etc, depending upon the species.</p>
<p>That's why people act "morally". They want to be good, because they were raised to want to be good.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If told that to be good, no one can see your face, or penis, well, that becomes part of what they strive to do...even if it seems silly to those who see penises and faces and don't think twice about it.</p>
<p>If told that they HAVE TO be good to avoid punishment, they simply incorporate that into their beliefs the same way the no pee pee in public "moral" was inculcated into their lives.</p>
<p>If told that good people believe in particular supernatural beliefs, they then believe that they should believe it too, because they know they are good....but are free to criticize the supernatural beliefs of others as retarded BS...especially if taught to "defend their faith at all costs".</p>
<p>So DEFENDING the faith is now also part of being a good person, and so forth.</p>
<p></p>
<p>They don't know that they are good because that's just who they are. They THINK they need specific supernatural explanations. </p>
<p>Some people are just BAD PEOPLE (Bad Monkeys, etc), and, will act bad because that's THEIR nature. Some are simply too impulsive, have too little sense of consequence, etc...and, they end up in trouble. MOST of them DO believe in the supernatural beliefs they were taught, but just can't help it, because they don't see themselves as good, enough at least...the way normal people do.</p>
<p>:D</p> FYI Hopefully, this will be a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-22:1982180:Comment:15953882016-07-22T16:43:29.708ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><a href="https://osf.io/2nf3u/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FYI</a> Hopefully, this will be academic enough for you.</p>
<p>I guess we'll have to disagree over how to interpret Kant, but I'm not alone in my interpretation. Maybe I'm guilty of simplification (this is a discussion group with a lot of people with no academic training in philosophy after all), but I think my view is basically valid and defensible. </p>
<p><em>Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the…</em></p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://osf.io/2nf3u/" target="_blank">FYI</a> Hopefully, this will be academic enough for you.</p>
<p>I guess we'll have to disagree over how to interpret Kant, but I'm not alone in my interpretation. Maybe I'm guilty of simplification (this is a discussion group with a lot of people with no academic training in philosophy after all), but I think my view is basically valid and defensible. </p>
<p><em>Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the highest good,” which consists of a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and <strong>this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God,</strong> </em>(emphasis mine) <em>a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world.</em> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/" target="_blank">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a>)</p> One of the biggest problems w…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-22:1982180:Comment:15951882016-07-22T15:07:06.090ZDavis Goodmanhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavisGoodman
<p>One of the biggest problems with moral relativity is that it starts from the premis that a culture has organically and meta-democratically come up with their moral laws and that it is up to them to do with it what they will. In that sense interfering with that culture would be tantamount to the U.S. overthrowing an elected leader as they did in Central America in the 20th century. Unfortunately moral laws don't work that way, much of it is formed by those with power and influence and people…</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems with moral relativity is that it starts from the premis that a culture has organically and meta-democratically come up with their moral laws and that it is up to them to do with it what they will. In that sense interfering with that culture would be tantamount to the U.S. overthrowing an elected leader as they did in Central America in the 20th century. Unfortunately moral laws don't work that way, much of it is formed by those with power and influence and people from disenfranchised groups have next to no say in the matter. In effect, in Saudi Arabia, women have minimal influence over moral rules and yet usually suffer the punishements to the greatest extreme. In effect, incest isn't just a social problem but more so regarding the victims. In other words, it is not a case of people forming laws through a democractic-cultural-world-view but instead a minority of people imposing moral laws onto those who cannot fight back, usually the least capable of standing up for themselves. What does this then say about little girls forced to marry a cousin or raped by a family member with impunity. By disagreeing with this are we disagreeing with the girls culture or are we disagreeing with how a minority of the culture things the girl should be treated as an object that has next to no choice in most of her decisions and is hardly allowed to break any of the moral rules to begin with considering the severe punishments inflicted and the near lack of choice on the far majority of their daily limited activities in their kitchen and segregated livingroom. If you generate a rule through reason (that forced marriage...especially to a family member...is wrong) than the cultural differences don't justify them from being shielded from moral critique. This is especially the case when the victims of these moral laws have no say in it and when we critique these laws, we are not only critiquing them in a categorical way (if it is wrong to rape it is wrong to rape no excuses) but also standing up for the victims that no one else will stand up for. </p>
<p>Decontological ethics bypass the randomness and unfairness of moral systems which change depending on location, gender, wealth, language, minority culture etc. so that situations where one group isn't forced into accepting the moral system of a minority, where each human being is treated as an autonomous agent and where principles are applied evenly to everyone and most importantly these principles are entirely based on reason rather than recieved morality or indoctrination. If you've worked out why rape is bad, then the subtleties and circumstances and excuses for it...are irrelevant. When a psychotic culture somehow ends up legalizing or forcing unspeakable and rarely-found human behavior (like cannibalism or obligatory bother sister marriage) it is easier to critique it because it seems not just horrible but also exceptional not to mention disturbing for most. That still doesn't mean it's wrong until one works out through reason why it is and are able to apply that sufficiently to all circumstances.</p> It’s has been used—by Dan Den…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-22:1982180:Comment:15951852016-07-22T14:59:10.223ZDavis Goodmanhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavisGoodman
<blockquote><p><span>It’s has been used—by Dan Dennett and Eddy Nahmias among others—to show that unless people believe in some form of free will, they’ll behave badly and society will fall apart.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Very interesting conclusion considering that is absolutely not what Dennett was implying. This webpage you are referencing is a guy who claims a friend could not replicate the study...but then he doesn't tell us what that study is but instead refers to a newspaper…</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>It’s has been used—by Dan Dennett and Eddy Nahmias among others—to show that unless people believe in some form of free will, they’ll behave badly and society will fall apart.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Very interesting conclusion considering that is absolutely not what Dennett was implying. This webpage you are referencing is a guy who claims a friend could not replicate the study...but then he doesn't tell us what that study is but instead refers to a newspaper column that will be written for the New York Times. Funny that you cannot find any information on the replication studies (nothing) but that we cannot even evaluate them or try to replicate those ones themselves because they haven't been subjected to srcutiny. Making incredibly bold claims (like that most studies cannot be replicated) requires providing impeccible information and evidence...something they haven't done. It was also found that a notable portion of those tests which weren't replicated weren't shown to be false but instead found a weaker result. While I buy it that many studies haven't been replicated, including important ones, we have no reason to accept what they said on this study because it's simply a claim with nothing to back it up.</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>Dennett basically embraces Kant's ridiculous and fallacious argument that we need God because if he didn't exist, bad people would ultimately go unpunished.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>No. This is a gross misunderstanding of Dennett's analysis and an even worse misunderstanding of Kant. Dennett points out, and nothing more, that when it is suggested to subjects that they may not be accountable for their actions, that they were more likely to cheat. This has no bearing on Dennett's ethics because his is a detontological-evolutionary one. That means, whether we live in a hard-determinist world or not, it makes no different on one's responsibility. You'd have to read his works instead of looking at a webpage some guy threw together attacking Dennett's claims without referencing his work or showing any evidence. Always a good idea to read the primary sources rather than an unsourced critique which is prone to biased affirmation.</span></p>
<p><span>When Kant says to the effect we should formulate our moral principles as though God exists...he is not suggesting that we consider that God exists, but that our moral principles if formulated in a de-ontological way would carry the same kind of universality that God's moral laws would have (if God actually did exist). Kant starts from the very beginning with a clean slate and forms his categorical moral statements through reason which is about as far the opposite as you can get from a God handing down rules. No only that but these sets of moral laws are made individually meaning that for the most part it is impossible to agree on a set of universal God-like laws but rather categorical ones on an individual basis.</span></p>
<p><span>In any case...this is all irrelevant because in a deontological system it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, how the action conflicting with a moral principle happened and even if you have free will or not, the conflict is still a conflict and the ifs and the ands and the buts are irrelevant.</span></p>
<p></p> @Simon:
". What sort of dark…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-21:1982180:Comment:15952642016-07-21T10:12:25.340ZGregg RThomashttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GreggRThomas531
<p>@Simon:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">". What sort of dark shit do these people have inside them...?"</span></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know how dark it is but it sure STINKS when they let it out.</p>
<p>@Simon:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">". What sort of dark shit do these people have inside them...?"</span></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know how dark it is but it sure STINKS when they let it out.</p> The video has nothing at all…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-20:1982180:Comment:15953592016-07-20T19:48:52.965ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>The video has nothing at all to do with incest, but I couldn't resist because of the title (dirty mind). </p>
<p>Anyway, I hate Joe Bonamassa for (a) being the best blues guitarist around and (b) not being afraid to show he knows it.</p>
<p>Nothing beats a great guitar band.</p>
<p>The video has nothing at all to do with incest, but I couldn't resist because of the title (dirty mind). </p>
<p>Anyway, I hate Joe Bonamassa for (a) being the best blues guitarist around and (b) not being afraid to show he knows it.</p>
<p>Nothing beats a great guitar band.</p> "some research shows that if…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-20:1982180:Comment:15950452016-07-20T19:22:45.409ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<blockquote><p>"<em>some research shows that if you present people with the claim that science has shown that we don’t really have free-will … they will actually behave less morally; they will be more apt to cheat.</em>" </p>
<p>- so it seems that a sense of free will and a sense of responsibility go together, which is understandable. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>That …</span></p>
<blockquote><p>"<em>some research shows that if you present people with the claim that science has shown that we don’t really have free-will … they will actually behave less morally; they will be more apt to cheat.</em>" </p>
<p>- so it seems that a sense of free will and a sense of responsibility go together, which is understandable. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>That </span><a rel="nofollow" href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/another-failure-to-replicate-a-much-cited-study-on-free-will-and-cheating/" target="_blank">isn't consistently replicable</a><span>, which is like saying it's false. In science, unless a hypothesis can be independently repeated by other researchers, it's a false hypothesis. Even if you take the position that we're talking about a social science and thus a soft science, results that sometimes repeat and sometimes don't are not useful.</span></p> I love me some guitar rich mu…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-20:1982180:Comment:15953562016-07-20T18:32:25.213ZGregg RThomashttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GreggRThomas531
<p>I love me some guitar rich music...screw hiphop.</p>
<p>I love me some guitar rich music...screw hiphop.</p> "So, what grounds do we have…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2016-07-20:1982180:Comment:15951502016-07-20T18:13:22.630ZSimon Payntonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SimonPaynton
<p>"<em>So, what grounds do we have for controlling people, for that is what morality is all about, is it not?</em>" </p>
<p>- classical theory states that we need everyone to be a good cooperator, because if they are not, society does not flourish. In the very old days, our small group would not flourish. So it's in everyone's interests to punish those who cheat / do not "cooperate". Of course, societies vary somewhat in how they define "cooperate". Small groups tend to be very…</p>
<p>"<em>So, what grounds do we have for controlling people, for that is what morality is all about, is it not?</em>" </p>
<p>- classical theory states that we need everyone to be a good cooperator, because if they are not, society does not flourish. In the very old days, our small group would not flourish. So it's in everyone's interests to punish those who cheat / do not "cooperate". Of course, societies vary somewhat in how they define "cooperate". Small groups tend to be very egalitarian; large groups tend to be very stratified with a rigid structure. </p>
<p>"<em>some research shows that if you present people with the claim that science has shown that we don’t really have free-will … they will actually behave less morally; they will be more apt to cheat.</em>" </p>
<p>- so it seems that a sense of free will and a sense of responsibility go together, which is understandable. </p>